Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

I've been looking closely at the you tube clips of Gong Kwon Yusul and Daito Juko Kudo, two new martial arts that have combined striking arts such as taekwondo, karate, boxing with grappling arts such as hapkido and judo and included ground work. It got me thinking, wouldn't it be nice to have one art that split its time one-third sparring, one-third throwing and standing joint-lock techniques and one-third newaza? The striking could emphasize low kicks to the groin and knee and both punching and open hand techniques to the head and body, the throwing and standing joint techniques could emphasize aikido-type techniques and the newaza could be similar to BJJ newaza but emphasize wrist manipulations. It would help students when confronted with a sparring situation and also if taken to the ground. It would help transitioning between sparring, throwing or standing joint manipulations to groundwork.

When I first started many moons back I did Judo to learn the throwing, Aikido for the locks, I started karate at so,me point but switched to Wing Chun for kicking and punching, and also did Jujutsu to mix it all up. I have tried many things but have kept Aikido central. Everything has been to improve my Aikido. I have seen many others go off in all sorts of directions ... and few stuck to Aikido. Not sure why I did it my way - it just happened - Aikido is just such an intersting puzzle with no easy answers = an interesting search.

A man walked into a hardware store and said to the sales associate, "I'd like to buy a tool, please."

"A tool for what, sir?" the associate said.

"Um, I don't know."

--

A man walked into a hardware store and said to the sales associate, "I'd like to buy a tool, please."

"A tool for what, sir?" the associate said.

"I need to fix a broken step on my porch, and I've got a lot of brush on my property that needs cutting, oh and I also need to mow my lawn, and I have to dig a hole for some fence posts, and I have to put together some IKEA furniture, and--"

A man walked into a hardware store and said to the sales associate, "I'd like to buy a tool, please."

"A tool for what, sir?" the associate said.

"Um, I don't know."

--

A man walked into a hardware store and said to the sales associate, "I'd like to buy a tool, please."

"A tool for what, sir?" the associate said.

"I need to fix a broken step on my porch, and I've got a lot of brush on my property that needs cutting, oh and I also need to mow my lawn, and I have to dig a hole for some fence posts, and I have to put together some IKEA furniture, and--"

A man walked into a bar with a slab of bitumen under his arm and said to the barman
"I'll have a beer please, .....and also one for the road."

Another man walks into a bar and the barman says "Hello Donkey"
So I ask the man why the barman called him Donkey:
"E-aw-e-aw.....he al-ways calls me that."

I'm by no means an expert, but I have friends in BJJ that say it is remarkably well-rounded. The ground stuff is the most popularized, but the rest of it is all still in there and still trained seriously by advanced practitioners.

Most schools that call themselves "Japanese Jujitsu" that I've seen practise a re-hash of self-defence techniques popularized by the judo expert Kawaishi in the 1950s. BJJ doesn't have striking in it, any striking they do is borrowed from other styles. Vale Tudo however does have lots of striking and that is also practised in Brazil. BJJ training is around 90% newaza, although they have good take-downs and throws, they generally don't do much, if any, tachi waza randori.

Personally, I believe that if you wish to learn strikes right/correct, one should go do a striking art for some years. I think they all have merit and strentgths/weaknesses, which can be overcome with either good tactics or cross-training a bit in something to cover the weaknesses.

Same with a grappling art, whether it be judo, BJJ, sambo, Greco-Roman, collegiate wrestling gone dirty, whatever. Do it for some years, and cross train in something to put patches over the weaknesses.

When you have that (the above), and this is my personal opinion, it's time to learn aikido, as both your body and mind will be ready for it. Aikido is hard work in the intellectual sense, though easier on the body than... say, muay thai. I did that, and loved it, and am glad ... now ... that I did do it, but I'm not going to do it again now that I'm over 40. Nope.

I find it interesting that the kanji character for kuzushi illustrates a mountain falling on a house.

Personally, I believe that if you wish to learn strikes right/correct, one should go do a striking art for some years. I think they all have merit and strentgths/weaknesses, which can be overcome with either good tactics or cross-training a bit in something to cover the weaknesses.

Same with a grappling art, whether it be judo, BJJ, sambo, Greco-Roman, collegiate wrestling gone dirty, whatever. Do it for some years, and cross train in something to put patches over the weaknesses.

When you have that (the above), and this is my personal opinion, it's time to learn aikido, as both your body and mind will be ready for it. Aikido is hard work in the intellectual sense, though easier on the body than... say, muay thai. I did that, and loved it, and am glad ... now ... that I did do it, but I'm not going to do it again now that I'm over 40. Nope.

Well I agree that one should go to the striking or grappling art to become skilled in that area. However, once you cease to train in that art, your competancy declines. After 10 years of not doing that art, you are probably at around 25% of where you were at your peak. Sure you are still better off than someone who did not ever do that art, but you're not up to standard against someone currently training 3 or 4 times per week in it. However, if your new martial art replicated some of the training you used to do when you specialized in striking or grappling, then you would be able to maintain many of the skills you learnt years ago.

Well I agree that one should go to the striking or grappling art to become skilled in that area. However, once you cease to train in that art, your competancy declines. After 10 years of not doing that art, you are probably at around 25% of where you were at your peak.

Now that strikes me as a number pulled out of a hat if ever there was one.

It would be silly to train in a martial art for many years and not be able to adequately handle someone who had mediocre striking skills or who took you to the ground and had mediocre groundwork skills.

It would be silly to train in a martial art for many years and not be able to adequately handle someone who had mediocre striking skills or who took you to the ground and had mediocre groundwork skills.

It would be silly to train in a martial art for many years and not be able to adequately handle someone who had mediocre striking skills or who took you to the ground and had mediocre groundwork skills.

and of course we will start the "my art better than your art" discussion shortly with such introduction. for example, what if i got a four-foot long razor blade with me, would you like to go anywhere near me for a take down to do ground work or even try your striking stuffs? or if i have an assault rifle with me, would you want to try your four-foot long razor blade? or i got this howitzer here, would you like to try your assault rifle? or i got this thermal nuclear weapon here, would you like to try your howitzer? and so on and so forth ad nauseam.

It would be silly to train in a martial art for many years and not be able to adequately handle someone who had mediocre striking skills or who took you to the ground and had mediocre groundwork skills.

Very true indeed. If the "bad guy" can impose his rule system on you, you will most likely lose. I'm using rule system in a global sense, not in a sports sense. What I mean is, if you've trained all your life as a boxer, and never did anything but boxing training for 20+ years, say, and the one time in your life you really need to defend yourself against an attack, and that attack comes right as you come through a doorway and the attacker jumps on yoru back and bears you to the ground....

While you are much better off for having done "something" rather than "nothing" most of what you know has been rendered irrelevant due to the attacker's imposition of his taking the fight down to the ground.

Now, take the same dude, who did some high school wrestling, and also kept himself in shape with regular boxing gym appearances for the 20+ years. Chances of surviving the initial moments of the conflict go way up, as the basic fundamentals of wrestling are most likely still available at need. Nothing really tricky or fancy, but basic movemtn to get out from under, escape a hold, what have you, and get to one's feet perhaps. Then, back on the feet, it's going to be a different outcome certainly.

Anyone can think up alternates for the above scenario, by switching in and out different self defense skill systems, right? Some of them seem very natural to double train in, others not so much. Aikido and Muay Thai? Who'd possibly combine those in a personal system.... Hmm. That's just weird.

I find it interesting that the kanji character for kuzushi illustrates a mountain falling on a house.

there is a spectrum of fighting skills from distant dealing with sticks and other weapons edges and non-edges, punches and kicks, the clinch, and to the ground. If you are concerned with understanding this spectrum then you simply must study it. ignoring aspects of it and simply saying it won't happen to me, or "the statistics say", or "I can prevent that with..." are not good solution sets.

there is a spectrum of fighting skills from distant dealing with sticks and other weapons edges and non-edges, punches and kicks, the clinch, and to the ground. If you are concerned with understanding this spectrum then you simply must study it. ignoring aspects of it and simply saying it won't happen to me, or "the statistics say", or "I can prevent that with..." are not good solution sets.

Kevin I think you are right and there is a philosophy now day that says there is no striking or weapons in Aikido. I think it started with “Aikido” sensei (both Japanese and others) that can nether strike or use weapons. O Sensei did both extremely well as did my teachers. Judo and Karate and Boxing helped before I found Aikido 46 years ago.

In feudal Japan striking may not have been that important when people wore armour and carried several weapons on the battlefield. However, in the West (and also in Okinawa) striking had/has a more prominent role. The nature of striking is now more multiple strikes, rather than "one punch one kill". Martial Arts need to recognize this and adapt if necessary.